My husband was adamantly against facebook and I decided it wasn’t worth the strife in our marriage and let it go.

Patience is a good thing.

I started getting friend requests from people that I hadn’t seen in years that I still cared about, and also from family that I never get a chance to talk to we’re all so busy. There were also fan pages at San Jose State University which get more frequently updated than the main website pages, like the career center page.

So, I approached Robert about facebook again, months later. He was annoyed, but said he’d think about it. I would wait a long time, and then ask if he’d given it any further thought. So, over time, and mentioning that I wouldn’t let facebook distract me from doing what I need to be doing.

Just yesterday I asked him about it again, and he said he was fine with it. We’ve basically made a pact. I get to use facebook as long as it doesn’t prevent me from doing what I need to be doing. If I ever start getting on facebook instead of doing what needs doing then no more facebook for me again.

I think it’s a fair trade.
And, it was worth the wait.

2: I am writing a novel. Nope, you don’t get to know what it’s about. ;P

3: My first spiritual experience happened when I was two years old. 

4: I want to learn three languages. Japanese, German, and Spanish. I only want to learn Spanish because I will need to know Spanish to be better able to help Spanish speaking kids.

5: I got my ears pierced in the beginning of 2007 at a real tattoo and piercing parlor in Marysville. I want to say it was called Cherry’s Tattoo and Piercing. . . I’ve also only had my license since August 29, 2008! I love being able to help my family and others more extensively now!

6: I have an Associate’s in Science Degree in Early Childhood Education obtained from Yuba College, 2008. I am working towards my Bachelor’s in Child and Adolescent Development with the intent to get a teaching credential so as to keep my options open. I want the choice to do Kindergarten as well as Preschool.

7: I am always having to explain why I need to discuss with my husband what I am doing with my time, especially when it takes me away from him. How horrible, I’m being polite and considerate to a man who works hard to take care of his family! (Note sarcasm)

8: I used to have night terrors. I even remember some of them.

9: I have always felt a connection with the Earth. So much so I used to say she was mine. “The Earth is mine.”

10: I loved going to Girls Camp. It really hurt one year when I had to stay home to go to summer school. But, I did everything I could the following year not to go to summer school, even going so far as to take night classes.

11: I love reading, especially science fiction, fantasy and learning books. Graphic novels count (aka comics). 

12: I reference movies and TV shows. I used to say (and still do occasionally), “Well, if you wanna be a Polyanna about it. . .” This confused my husband since he never saw the movie Polyanna. One day he finally got fed up with that phrasing and asked me why on Earth I keep saying that. For the record, I hated the movie when I was a kid. I didn’t even finish watching it. Never managed to try it out again. Now I say, “you’re being Monkish.”

13: I always give people the benefit of the doubt. This causes people to believe that I am far too nice. 

14: I gave a good friend of mine a cucussion once. The scary part, I held back some so I wouldn’t really hurt him. . . Oops.

15: I believe everyone would benefit from a Statistics course.

16: I never buy my husband presents for his birthday or Christmas, or any other event. I do something artistic for him. Unfortunately, since last semester was brutal I am now behind two gifts! WAGH.

17: I waited for years to have a music calling. I never said I wanted one because I figured that I would get it when the time was right. I am now the Relief Society Music Director. I get to pick the hymns for RS and do the five minute music time/spotlight! Yay!

18: I used to have three imaginary friends as a kid. Laurence Theodore Dreamberry (a boy), Ratty (a rat), and Tree Star (a fairy). 

19: I enjoy making dinner for my family.  Sadly, most people see it as a burden. It’s only a pain sometimes. 

18: I still have the first Christmas present my husband ever gave me. I still have a couple of roses from the first bouquet my husband gave me. I still have my wedding bouqet, mostly, due to bad cat behavior. 

19: My Mom gave me a flutter pony when I was about eight or nine years old. I still have it. And my siblings wondered why she chose to give it to me and not them. I lost my Medley My Little Pony when I was about the same age. Years later I was able to find a replacement at a garage sale, and then bought myself another one on ebay. I remember looking around for that pony at the store we went to. I suppose some other kid nabbed it.

20: When I was in 9th grade, I did this art piece that was very bright and golden in color. It was so very different from my normal dark tones and hues I would use. Someone stole it while I was outside participating in PE. 

21: I have written a few piano pieces but I can’t sight read music to save my life. I don’t even consider myself a pianist because it’s that bad. 

22: Someday I would like to have rats as pets again. They are the best pets ever. Don’t tell my cats that. Though, they’re really close, just about equal. But, when it comes to my pets as members of the family, I love them all equally, but differently. No two cats, and no two rats are the same!

23: I want smack the people who believe that environmental issues are liberal propaganda. To what end, I have no idea, but oh, they believe it. Those crazy liberals actually want to take care of the planet they live on. Nevermind the fact that it’s the only one we’ve got!

24: I miss the Jehovah’s Witnesses that would come by on Fridays. I haven’t seen them all month. This makes me sad. 

25: Someday I would like to get in touch with Tasheena (sp?) again. She used to live with us when my family lived in Florida. She had a big impact on me. She helped me be aware of the feelings of all living things around me. She was Native American.

Then there was a PS. Don’t forget to have food storage for your pets!

Wow, that’s, wow, duh! I should have thought of that myself! I have cats, so now I have an extra bag of cat food just in case, and when I can I’ll get some extra canned food as well. As soon as things go right financially (read: as soon as the car stops hating us – which I always fill when it reaches half a tank just in case). I will also be getting some cat harnesses and leashes and start training my cats to be comfortable in harnesses and eventually be outside walking with me. If we have to evacuate due to some emergency there is no way my cats can be in a cat carrier for 72 hours or more. That’s insane!

So, if you’re like me and think of your pets as a part of your family, they need to be included in your emergency preparedness plans.

National Public Radio is one of the most unbiased news sources out there. Here is a two part article on this very issue. Basically if you do not support the homosexual lifestyle that’s too bad. Here are a few examples:

The Methodist Church was forced to allow a civil union ceremony in a pavilion that they own because in general the pavilion was for public use. Not only did they have to let a lesbian couple use it, but in the mean time they also lost part of their tax exemption.

A doctor did not want to perform in vitro fertilization treatment for a woman in a lesbian relationship because it went against his beliefs, so instead he referred her to a doctor who would do the procedure. So far it has been suggested that the doctor go into a different line of work and it is believed the woman who sued will win her case.

A mental health counselor refused to provide services to a lesbian woman wanting help with her partner because the relationship went against the counselor’s beliefs. The counselor was fired.

There are many cases such as these that are happening in the United States, and that’s just with civil unions. It is believed by many that it will only get worse once homosexuals retain the ability to marry.

During one of NPR’s morning forums (If I recall correctly it aired Wednesday October 22, at 9am) there was a fairly prominent lesbian and a catholic man. I do not remember their names nor the names of their specific organizations. What I do remember is that the lesbian woman did *nothing* to assuage the concerns that people have about allowing homosexual marriages. She simply kept stating that it was a lie that homosexual marriages had anything to do with schools, that it’s a lie church’s will be forced to perform homosexual marriages or risk losing their tax exempt status and that homosexuals have a fundamental right to marry.

Yet, there’s all these other evidences that say these supposed lies are truths. After the judges overturned Prop 22 there has been a myriad of wacko things going on, like the lesbian marriage field trip. There’s already Coming Out Day being celebrated in schools, including an elementary school in Hayward without parents being informed beforehand. There’s also GLBT History Month which is in October. According to the official GLBT History Month website October was specifically chosen because public schools are in session at that time. New York is even going so far as to build a taxpayer funded homosexual private high school.

On the Official California Legislative Information website you will find information on various codes, including the Education Code. In the California Education Code Section 51933 you will find information on sex education from ages K-12. In it includes a requirement to discuss marriages and committed relationships. Hmm. . . so if homosexuals are allowed to marry then it will become a part of school curriculum since nearly all schools teach sex education (I can’t think of one that doesn’t). You can say that maybe parents could opt out but that’s only for a specific event. You can’t opt out of the beforehand discussions or the after-hand discussions.

I was talking to a friend at church about this subject. It basically came down to that it would be different if homosexuals just wanted to get married and life went on. It’s the fall out that has everyone up in arms. It’s the homosexual lifestyle being taught in schools, it’s people losing pieces of their freedom of religion. It’s insanity. Why should one group gain a right at the expense of another group’s rights?

I do think that homosexuals should be able to use their free agency to marry if that’s what they want. It’s when that starts infringing upon the rights of others I draw the line. If these issues were not present I would wholeheartedly be against Prop 8. Homosexuals want the right to marry, the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others want to retain their rights to religious freedoms. Until this can be reconciled I have to say my stance is yes on prop 8, which really really sucks.

Law Making or Law Upholding
written by Janet G. Glasgow, July 7, 2008
reproduced with permission

Judges, throughout history, have been entrusted with the duty and responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions according to the laws, traditions and customs of their lands. These arbiters have been men and women of good standing in their communities who cared for the good of the people and the upholding of the law. Their duty has been to be fair and just, while making decisions in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the law. People of honor and wisdom have been chosen for this high office since the beginning of recorded history. These men and women are not lawmakers; but law upholders. No court should take upon itself the legislative duty of making a law, for without the voice of the people being heard by vote, it is the will of the judge and not the will of the people, having had no public debate or consideration; the people only learning of it after the fact.

Unfortunately, judges have begun to make laws that are against the voice of the people. Two such cases have recently occurred in the State of California. On May 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court, proclaimed that the law against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This decision was blatantly against the voice of the people who, in 2004, voted to ban same-sex marriage. The second case occurred on February 28, 2008, when a court ruled that all children, ages six to eighteen must attend full-time day school, public or private, or have a tutor who has a state credential for the child’s grade level, thus making home schooling against the law. California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, was completely taken by surprise and issued a statement saying that parents would not be prosecuted. Approximately 166,000 children are in home school in California. O’Connel also issued a statement saying that he supports “parental choice when it comes to homeschooling.” According to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, “With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect.” This ruling was a total surprise to all home schoolers in the state.(2008). The judge made a ruling in a case that began as a welfare case concerning one family, but now it affects thousands.

The politically correct-minded seem to think that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue; one that’s time has come. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an issue of culture and way of life. The culture of the United States has everything to do with families. The family is the smallest unit of society. Embracing the union of men with men and women with women contorts the basic philosophy of a family being a man, a woman and children. Same-sex marriage does not have, nor can it have, this make-up. Some may say that with the high divorce rate in the United States, there are already many families that do not adhere to the above definition. However, even if that is the case, it is not a reason to deliberately destroy this fundamental, unit of society. Having same-sex marriage not only changes the definition of marriage, it also changes the definition of family.

Some of the ramifications of such marriages include these questions: Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt children when research shows that children are happier and more well adjusted in a family with a father and a mother? What is the responsibility of society to such children? Should a clergyman be forced by law to perform the marriage ceremony of a same-sex couple when his religion is against doing so? Even during wartime, a person may declare himself to be a conscientious objector and be excused from being in the military. Does he have more rights than a clergyman who wishes to be excused from same-sex marriage duty? Must people who have religious convictions be vilified for adhering to their beliefs?

There are those who believe that homosexuality is a sin. It is unnatural and offensive in many belief systems. People having such beliefs should not be viewed as hate-mongers. There are those on the fringes of society who have no tolerance for other lifestyles, but they are in the minority. People who believe that same-sex marriage is not good for society are not bigoted, brainless, or uncaring. They are generally decent, reasonable people with valid concerns about the future in a world where customs, traditions, and laws of society are being uprooted and replaced with laws that will create less freedom for all and will cause much bitterness, distress, and a whirlwind of clashes between the constitutional rights of some people and the tenets of others.

Society should not have to break its own boundaries, change the definition of marriage and family, and make the entire country take on a different national attitude so that a few people can proclaim that they are married; especially when civil unions are already available. Same-sex marriage brings with it a plethora of problems. Same-sex couples want more than to be married. They want to be thought of as normal; that is to say, natural; but what about the rest of society. What does the same-sex couple’s new normality do to the rest of the people. For example: A woman who is concerned that her husband may have an affair, may now not only be concerned about other women but have a new concern that her husband may have a tryst with another man. After all, such a thing is now considered to be normal behavior. A young teenager, confused about his/her sexual feelings may now decide that sorting through his/her feelings is not important. After all, why does it matter, if it is all normal behavior. These are real considerations of real people. Gender confusion in children is of great concern when considering same-sex marriage. The problem is that if we have same sex-marriage, homosexuality is no longer a trait that belongs to a particular group of people; it has been turned into normal behavior for anyone.

Many people send their children to Christian Schools, or other private schools, (even non-christians) because they do not want their children to be subjected to certain ideas that are being taught in the public schools, such as, masturbation is a good thing, the showing of private sexual body parts in middle school as a part of sex education, and that homosexual and bisexual lifestyles are normal and natural. These people have a right to their opinions and are willing to make sacrifices to bring their children up as they see fit. These are not people who hate homosexuals. These are generally good people who care about others, including those who are gay or lesbian. Nevertheless, they wish to have their children taught traditional values, knowing that these children will go into society when they are older and will, they hope, make decisions in a traditional way, while being tolerant of others. These parents have the right to do this. If same-sex marriage is allowed and Christian schools are forced to teach that the homosexual lifestyle is normal, the schools will shut down. Parents will be forced to either have tutors or put their children in home school. For some, this will mean relocating to a home-school-friendly state.

This brings us to the second situation where a judge has taken the law into his own hands without the voice of the people. Home school is a valuable tool in the education sector. It is sometimes not only preferred, but necessary. Having a teaching credential is not a prerequisite for being a good teacher in the home school setting. There are a great many successful home schools in the state of California. Parents do not put their children in home school on a whim. It can be expensive and takes time. Usually, the parents are extremely concerned about the education or environment available in the public school setting. Sometimes parents with concerns about public school do not have the resources to put their child into a private school. There was a superintendent of schools some years ago who would refer students with problems to a Home School Association. In each case, the students did much better academically and socially. The Association had combined weekly meetings and even put on musical plays for family, friends and neighbors.(Glasgow, 1988)

If the education of the child is the first concern, home schooling should be applauded for the success it enjoys. Home schooled college students rank very highly on college qualifying tests. Children returning to public school after being in home school often test at least one or more grades higher than their public school counterparts. “Homeschooled students typically have performed fifteen to thirty percentile points higher than public school students on standardized achievement tests and have been above the norm in social and psychological development” (Ray,2003). They perform well in college, have leadership skills and tend to be critical and independent thinkers. ”Homeschooled students also have tended to be more active in civic and community activities than the norm.”(Smith and Sikkink, 1999).

Making home school illegal when so many families do so well in it is an ignorant thing to do. Making same-sex marriage legal when there are so many destructive consequences is an ignorant thing to do. The courts are overstepping the extent of their authority when they do not know the will of the people or they judge against the will of the people. Perhaps judges do not trust the people to know what is best for themselves. According to Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, “Backers of gay marriage have never secured anything close to a majority of Californians to support their position. They have had to rely on activist judges to do their bidding because voters do not support them. However, the people’s right to vote on critical issues like this is of paramount importance….” (http://proquest.umi.com/)

Justice Marvin Baxter, of the California Supreme Court and dissenter to the legalization of same-sex marriage said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Do the judges not see where these rulings are leading the nation?

President of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Bruce Clemenger has said, “If marriage is reduced to merely a contract between two people, its distinctiveness will be lost and it will be hard for the government to refuse including other types of relationships.” (2003)

Consider the group called The North America Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Their resolve is to “end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships.” (Radow, 1994). This group claims that it does nothing against the law by making such declarations. (The ACLU agrees, coming to their defense as a free speech issue.) Nevertheless, there have been many criminal cases involving NAMBLA members, including the rape and murder of a ten year old boy. (http://www.thecpac.com/Curleys-v-NAMBLA.html). This group has a political agenda and desires to change the law so that it is no longer against the law for a man to have sex with a consenting underage boy. This organization also publishes newsletters that inform men on how to engage in such activities without getting caught. It should be noted here that NAMBLA is not a mainstream gay-lesbian association. It is being mentioned as an example of political agendas that go too far and would remove safeguards and civil rights of some in favor of others, but is not indicative of the feelings of the general homosexual population; many of whom are appalled at such sentiments.

The California Supreme Court should realize that legalizing same-sex marriage is the beginning of the criminalization of religion in the United States. This has the potential to divide the nation and do great harm. For example, Stephen Boissoin, a pastor in Canada, was ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to stop expressing his views on homosexuality. He cannot write of it on the internet, speak of it from the church pulpit, or in any way make his feelings known. He was fined seven thousand dollars to be paid to a homosexual activist. This occurred because he wrote a letter to the editor of The Red Deer Advocate paper. Boissoin wrote, “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system, all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”(Waggoner,2008) When a person cannot respectfully speak their own opinions, the courts have gone too far. Boissoin maintains that he has no hate nor malice towards homosexuals.

“The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court that legalized same-sex marriage in that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of precautionary principle, which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. “(2003)

Justice Sosman was correct in her assessment that the burden of proof, that same-sex marriage is harmless, has not been met. There may be a chain reaction of loss of civil rights if decisions that go against the will of the people are not overturned. For example, in 2002, prostitution became legal in Germany. Today, there are women who are in need of public assistance who are being told that they cannot continue to receive assistance because they refused to take a job at a brothel. The job is prostitution but since it is legal, it is in their government system and as a legally listed job it must be taken or financial assistance is denied.(Chapman, 2005). This is what happens when poor judgment is used in creating or interpreting laws. Civil rights are lost.

The two laws in question are related. Both are an attack on the family as we know it. There are already cases in Massachusetts concerning the teaching of children that homosexual behavior is normal. One case involves families whose children are ages four through seven. These children are being given books and are being read to from books such as King and King, in which a prince goes to look for a princess to marry. Finding none to his liking, he finds another prince and marries him. The parents have Judeo-Christian beliefs and, as the introduction to the case states, they “tolerate and respect all people but wish to teach their faith to their children at their own pace, and in their own way.” (http://www.lexingtoncares.org/lawsuit2006-04-27//lawsuitspdf)

Laws should not undermine parental rights to teach their children nor should they infringe on religious freedom. The voice of the people is usually the clearest and most reasonable voice. There are no hidden agendas; no deals made, no radical groups constantly lobbying. There are only the individual citizens, who know what kind of country they want their children and grandchildren to live in. These are the people; the same ones who want to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. These are the people who must have their voices listened to by those whom they have trusted to judge fairly and uphold the law with pure intent. No court should make decisions against the voiced will of the people, nor should it make policy without the voice of the people being heard. The people should be trusted since the government is of, by, and for the people.

References

Chapman, Clare, (2005). ‘If you don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits,’ retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.telegraph./co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/’
‘if .you.don’t.take.a.job.as.a.prostitute.%2c.-we.can.stop.your.benefits.’html

Clemenger, Bruce, (2003), retrieved on July 1,2008 from http://www.AlbertNohler.com

Glasgow, Janet, (1988), Personal Journal, p.104

Radow, Roy, (1994), retrieved June 28,2008, from http://www.qrd.org/orgs/NAMBLA/

Ray, B.D., (2003) Does home schooling promote the public good?-Yes. The CQ Researcher online, 13,25-48. retrieved Sept. 24, 2005, from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2003011700.

Smith, C. and Sikkink, D. (1999). Is Private school privatizing/ First Things, 92 (4), 16-20, retrieved Sept. 24, 2005, from http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9904/smithlhtml. Article ID:3137

Sosman, Martha, (2003), transcript of dissent, retrieved June28, 2008, blogspot.com

Waggoner,Tim (2008) Alberta Pastor Fined $7,000. and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality. retrieved July7,2008 from http:www.lifesitenews.com/ldnn/2008/jun/08060902.html

Okay, now that I’ve given you the run down on the Plan of Salvation/Happiness I hope you have a better grasp of the Mormon belief system on families.

With this in mind mortal families are to reflect our eternal goals. Homosexual marriages would not represent a divine marriage. It would also frustrate their ability to accept the Gospel and consequently their ability to attain their divine potential. Homosexuals can be members of the church but they are required to abstain from homosexual sex (heterosexuals are required to abstain from sex as well until they get married, and sometimes they never get married). Thus it stands to reason that if you’re married to someone of the same sex you would not be able to get baptized unless you were to divorce. It’s a lose-lose situation. You wouldn’t be able to accept the Gospel and thus not be able to fully take care of your own individual salvation, let alone obtaining exaltation and a forever family. Or, if you do get divorced so you could accept the Gospel your family is now broken, heart ache and pain would abound, and likely resentment would fester in your soul, especially if there are children involved. No one wins.

We do not want our homosexual brothers and sisters to have to face this sort of situation, and we do not want homosexuals marriages to be seen as a viable alternative because we love them, because in the eternities it is not a viable option at all. The idea of supporting homosexual marriage here on earth goes against the grain of our belief system regarding eternal families and how that works.

However, we also firmly believe that we have the right to choose. We each have our free agency, and thus homosexuals have the right to choose the homosexual lifestyle.

I am hoping I have made myself clear enough on this subject. I promise you the general Mormon stance against homosexual marriage has nothing to do with bigotry, or wanting to feel superior. It is straight up our belief system that families are ordained of God and are formulated in a semi-specific way.

I remember working with a homosexual man when I worked at the Game Keeper. I only found out he was gay because I asked him if had an S.O. and he said maybe. I later asked him who the lucky gal was. It was funny, I heard him say, “the moment of truth” and he mouthed some words or said them too softly for me to hear, so I said, “say again?” and leaned in closer to hear him say, “I’m gay.” So I immediately switched gears to who’s the guy and life went on. It was great working with him, I hate it that we lost touch (dude, if you’re reading this contact me, I hope life is going good for ya.). Anyway, we got on this very subject, and it was after prop 22. I explained these same beliefs to him that I have to you, and it was like the light bulb turned on. I remember him saying, “ohhhhh, so this marriage thing is a big deal to you guys.” Yes, yes it is. We’re not trying to be mean, it’s what we believe.

Sure, you’ll find a bigoted Mormon, or one who’s condescending towards others, or those who have difficulty knowing how to love the person and hate the sin. If you happen upon one of those, just know that is something they have to personally work on. Judge not lest ye be judged, as in, we’ll be judged on the same basis we judge others. Sucks for them, eh?

Most Mormon’s are not filled with hate but with love. One must understand the point of view that we are coming from. We see homosexuality as a moral issue, not a political issue. We also see it as an eternal issue. Ever since our inception we have had a firm belief that the family is a sacred and eternal unit and is ordained of God. We believe that families can be together forever.

To help you understand our position I must give you the run down of The Plan of Salvation & Happiness. Before we came to earth we lived with our Heavenly Parents. Our spirit bodies were limited. There were things we could not experience, growth that could not be attained, if we had stayed in those bodies. A plan was devised, and Heavenly Father talked to each of us about it in council meetings. This plan advocated free agency, leaving each of us the freedom to choose between good or evil and to have power over our own lives. However, in order to do this we would need to be in a fallen state, or a state of spiritual amnesia. We would also need a Mediator, someone who would pay the price for all our sins, our mistakes, otherwise justice would be without mercy.

Jesus, our eldest spiritual brother volunteered to do this. Lucifer volunteered as well, but not to do the same thing. Lucifer said that he would force all of us to choose righteousness so that no one would be lost. Lucifer also wanted [i]all[/i] of the glory. A war broke out, not one of death, but of words and of spiritual and physical growth. Lucifer and one third of the hosts of Heaven lost and were banished from Heaven.

Two thirds of the hosts of Heaven stuck with Heavenly Father’s plan. Every single person born on Earth is a part of that two thirds. We gained a body for our spirits to reside in, while Lucifer and his followers did not. We were sent to Earth to live. Lucifer and his hosts came here too.

Jesus Christ came to Earth, atoned for our sins and conquered death. Christ’s sacrifice has three parts. First is that every single soul that has been born will be resurrected. After we die our spirits are separated from our bodies. Our spirits then await the return of Christ in the Spirit World. Upon Christ’s return our spirits will be reunited with our bodies. We will never die. This is given to all as an unconditional gift. Everyone will receive the gift of immortality no matter what.

Salvation on the other hand refers to being saved from spiritual death as well as physical death (which again is a free gift just because our Heavenly Father loves us). To be saved from spiritual death one must develop faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and live the laws and ordinances of His gospel. Repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost are all done individually.

However, that is not all. There is exaltation, and that is a family matter. Before I go further on this I must explain that we believe there are three degrees of Glory, or three heavens. After Christ returns and we are judged of our works here on Earth we are sent to the appropriate heaven for us. The Celestial Kingdom is the highest degree of Glory and that should be our goal. This is where we can be with our families for eternity.

To achieve exaltation one must take care of individual matters first, and be worthy to enter the Temple where sealing ordinances take place. There we are not only sealed as husband and wife, but parents and children can be sealed to one another and indirectly as grandparents, aunts and uncles. Through these ordinances our families are united forever. No man can achieve exaltation without a worthy woman at his side and vise versa.

We believe that, and I quote since this says it best methinks, “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each [of us] is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (1). “[Gender] in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different, distinctive, and complementary. … The unique combination of spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females were needed to implement the plan of happiness” (2).

“The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally. … The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. “(1).

(1) “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102
(2) “Marriage Is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” Liahona, June 2006, 51; Ensign, June 2006,

Here is the article: Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day

Problem 1: This became a school sponsored event the moment the school approved of this field trip. They took time out of school to go see their teacher get married.

If the teacher had invited the parents and children to her wedding and it was a weekend wedding and most of her class showed up that would be okay by me because it would not be a school sponsored event. Or if the parents had surprised the teacher during a non-school day or after school and attended the wedding it would be okay by me.

Problem 2: This is not how you should deal with homosexual issues in elementary school.

If there’s a sharing day and you ask the kids to bring in a family picture to talk about it and then one kid has same gender parents that’s fine. I have no problem with that. No child should be excluded from such a sharing activity. THAT is the appropriate way to deal with such things! Allow them to come up naturally during those times when the class talks about their families!

Problem 3: The after field trip activities related to the field trip.

Making this whole homosexual marriage issue part of a school or class curriculum is inappropriate. While the parents were allowed to opt out of this field trip (two families did) it does not stop those children from being exposed to the contents of this field trip in other ways such as the after field trip activities relating to the field trip.

Homosexual marriage is a moral issue. As such public schools should not promote either for or against homosexual marriage.

In high schools you can have the gay club if a teacher sponsors it, just as schools allow the Christian club and the Muslim club. There is no reason to pound our young children’s head with this. They’ll figure it out eventually, when they are cognitively ready and able to!

For whatever reason my husband is adamantly against me using Facebook. He, himself, of course does not use it. He says it’s full of stupid. I argued that it’s only as stupid is one makes it, and that really it’s just a messenger system on crack. But alas, he was not to be reasoned with. I’ve never seen him get this unyielding about a social forum before, at least not that I can recall. It caught me off guard.

After thinking about it for a few days and trying to talk him about it again (apparently it didn’t matter that his best friend whom he really respects is on there, after all, I can talk to him via other means) and then thinking about it some more I decided to just let it go.

It is true, everyone on my friends list I know in real life. I have everyone’s email address, and even phone numbers so I really can keep in touch with people through other means, it’s just not as convenient.

I’ve decided to keep the rss feed going, as in, every time you see a note it’s because I’ve posted on my personal website www.ruthiechan.net. I set it so that Facebook checks and nab posts that I make from there. So I would appreciate it that if anyone has any comments about said posts if they would hop on over to ruthiechan.net to voice them instead since I won’t get them any other way.

Some might think that I should use Facebook anyway. If I did that it would be dishonest or if he knew I used it anyway without a care to his feelings on the matter it would cause bitter feelings between us. It’s just not worth it to me.

So with that, I say adieu to Facebook, but not to all my friends. I’m keeping you.

Faith & Hope,
Ruthie : )

How did it feel when Daddy and I were having problems before we separated?
“You said I love you but no hugs, no love, no kissing, weren’t showing you were loving.”

How did that make you feel?
“Crying and being sad sad sad sad sad sad sad. Because it wasn’t the right thing to do, not giving loves, not following the Son of God, and God doesn’t like it.”

How did it feel when we separated, when we stopped living together?
“Happy. Because you were going to try to fix it. Because it was the right thing to do so we can change it. I missed him [Daddy].”

How do you think it would have felt if Daddy and I never moved back in together?
With a big frowny face “Sadness.”

How did it feel when you saw Daddy and I getting closer together, showing more love?
With a big smile “Happy.”

How do you feel now that we’re all living together again?
“Happy!”

Why did you want us to work it out and live together again?
“So we can see him forever, because we love him [Daddy].”

I noticed the we in all that so I asked her about it.

Did you think that part of why we separated was your fault?
She shakes her head no. “No.” (This means I did my job on that one.)

Did you think that you could help fix it?
“No.” Pause. “Both of you would.”